Jasmann Pty Ltd & anor v Yael Abraham [2006] NSWIRComm 251

Jasmann Pty Ltd & anor v Yael Abraham [2006] NSWIRComm 251

The applicants did not provide a reasonable or adequate explanation for failing to file within the 21 day appeal period, and did not show that refusal of an extension would work an injustice. The proposed fresh evidence was mostly in existence before the original hearing, much of its subject matter had already been raised before Commissioner Macdonald, and much of it amounted only to a collateral attack on Ms Abraham's credit rather than evidence capable of establishing a complete defence to the finding of an employment relationship. The applicants were not denied procedural fairness merely because their director, who chose to conduct the case, later obtained legal advice that the case...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Related Application in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time to File an Application Seeking Leave to Appeal and to Appeal Against Commissioner Macdonald's Decision, With an Application for a Stay of Compensation Orders
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'stay of Orders' 'employment Relationship' 'procedural Fairness']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'stay of Orders' 'employment Relationship' 'procedural Fairness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Related Application in Unfair Dismissal Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time to File an Application Seeking Leave to Appeal and to Appeal Against Commissioner Macdonald's Decision, With an Application for a Stay of Compensation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended for the applicants to file an application seeking leave to appeal and to appeal against Commissioner Macdonald's unfair dismissal decision." 'Whether the applicants had shown a sufficient explanation for filing the appeal-related applications outside the 21 day time limit.' 'Whether the proposed fresh evidence was new, probative, and capable of affecting the findings that an employment relationship existed and that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.' 'Whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness because they were represented at first instance by a director without legal training.' 'Whether a stay of the compensation order would have been warranted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not provide a reasonable or adequate explanation for failing to file within the 21 day appeal period, and did not show that refusal of an extension would work an injustice. The proposed fresh evidence was mostly in existence before the original hearing, much of its subject matter had already been raised before Commissioner Macdonald, and much of it amounted only to a collateral attack on Ms Abraham's credit rather than evidence capable of establishing a complete defence to the finding of an employment relationship. The applicants were not denied procedural fairness merely because their director, who chose to conduct the case, later obtained legal advice that the case...

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time to file an application seeking Leave to Appeal and to Appeal against the Decision of Commissioner Macdonald made on 4 May 2006 in Matter No IRC 2572 of 2004 is refused.']